TEACHING AND LEARNING IN SCHOOL
What Is Direct Instruction?
T he Direct Instruction (DI) model is the most care-
fully developed and thoroughly tested program for
teaching reading, math, writing, spelling, and thinking
ers and help reduce the amount of unnecessary teacher
talk. DI developers found that children learn best by
working through a sequence of tasks with carefully
skills to children. Siegfried Engelmann and Wesley
timed comments from the teacher. They learn little from
Becker developed DI at the University of Illinois in the
listening to teacher talk, which often causes confusion
1960s. It was further developed by Engelmann, Doug
by changing the focus of the tasks, thereby hampering
Carnine, Bonnie Grossen, Ed Kameenui, Jerry Silbert,
students’ acquisition of the larger generalization. It also
and others at the University of Oregon. Research and
draws out the length of the lesson unnecessarily and
development on the model continues today throughout
reduces the number of practice trials. When the teacher
the country. Two major rules underlie DI: (1) teach more
is talking, students are not responding, and students
in less time, and (2) control the details of the curricu-
learn most when they are actively responding.
lum.
Scripted presentations are part of the whole lesson,
Teaching more in less time recognizes that even if
and DI lessons are par t of the whole school day.
students with disabilities are taught by an effective pro-
Lessons also include opportunities for group and inde-
gram that enables them to progress at the same rate as
pendent work. A good DI teacher creates additional
their nondisabled peers, they will always remain
activities that allow students to make use of their learn-
behind. Only by teaching at a faster rate can the
ing in various situations.
achievement gap be reduced (Kameenui & Simmons,
Learner-tested curriculum design. A first-time
1990).
observer of a well-taught DI lesson is immediately struck
High rates of student engagement. Although some
by its high energy level: rapid pacing, the teacher’s use
DI programs are designed for whole-class instruction, DI
of verbal and visual signals, and the children’s choral
is typically conducted with 5 to 10 children, which is
responding stand out from typical teaching methods. But
more efficient than one-to-one instruction and allows
the observer is seldom aware of the curriculum design—
more teacher attention, feedback, and individualization
the selection and sequencing of instructional examples—
than does large-group instruction. High rates of active
that is at the heart of DI.
student response are generated by having students
chorally respond (in unison) to a rapid series of teacher- Direct Instruction is an intensive intervention
presented items (Carnine, 1976; Heward, Courson, & designed to increase not only the amount of learning
Narayan, 1989). Individual turns are interspersed within but also its quality by systematically developing
group responses. To help both the pacing and the simul- important background knowledge and explicitly
taneous participation of all students, teachers use sig- applying it and linking it to new knowledge. Direct
nals (e.g., hand movements, claps) to cue students when Instruction designs activities that carefully control
to respond. the background knowledge that is required so that
Immediate feedback. Correct responses are praised, all students can “build hierarchies of understanding,”
and materials have been designed so that 70% of first- not just those students who come to school with the
time responses are correct (Engelmann, 1997). All errors appropriate background knowledge. In the process,
are corrected immediately via a model-lead-test procedure mechanistic skills evolve into flexible strategies, con-
that ends with the student making the correct responses. cepts combine into schemata, and success in highly
This firming continues until the student(s) who erred structured situations develops into successful perfor-
responds correctly and independently. A good DI teacher mance in naturalistic, unpredictable, complex envi-
does not move to the next task in a lesson (or from one ronments. (Carnine, Grossen, & Silbert, 1995)
lesson to the next) until the students have demonstrated
Curriculum examples are selected and sequenced
their mastery of the current task.
based on the finding that if children respond perfectly
Scripted lessons. Scripts indicate what the teacher
to a smaller set of carefully engineered tasks, they gen-
should do and say for each item or task in the lesson.
eralize their learning to untaught examples and situa-
They ensure consistent, quality instruction across teach-
272
tions (Engelmann & Carnine, 1982). For example, chil- Myths and misconceptions. There are many myths
dren who learn to spell 600 word parts called mor- and misconceptions about DI (Engelmann, 1997; Tarver,
phographs and know three rules for connecting them 1998). Here are four:
can spell 12,000 words. Children who rehearse the 600
• DI is good for teaching decoding and word recogni-
word parts and three rules to a level of automaticity
tion but does not improve reading comprehension
can spell any of the 12,000 words with ease.
or instill a love of books. Wrong. Because they
DI designers test the programs carefully before pub-
have learned to rapidly and effortlessly decode
lishing them. Each DI program is extensively field-tested
printed text, DI students are able to concentrate on
and revised based on student performance data. The goal
the meaning of authentic literature, thereby enjoying
is to include every piece necessary to make the lessons
and truly benefiting from whole language activities
successful.
(Carnine, Silbert, & Kameenui, 1998).
DI curriculum materials are available for teaching
• DI relegates the teacher to a person who simply
reading (Engelmann & Bruner, 1988), mathematics
reads a script. Wrong. First, just reading the
(Engelmann & Carnine, 1992), and language arts (Engel-
script will not teach students anything. Even though
mann & Silbert, 1993) in grades K to 6. There is even a
DI programs are carefully tested and scripted, there
DI program that parents can use to teach preschoolers to
is nothing simple about using them successfully.
read: Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons
Good DI teachers must learn special presentation
(Engelmann, Haddox, & Bruner, 1983). Recent textbooks
techniques and make many on-the-fly decisions in
provide teachers with thorough explanations and exam-
response to the children’s performance. Second,
ples of how to apply DI curriculum design and instruc-
while scripts are used by other highly skilled profes-
tional principles to teaching reading (Carnine, Silbert, &
sionals (e.g., surgeons and musicians) for some rea-
Kameenui, 1998) and math (Stein, Silbert, & Carnine,
son the education profession expects teachers to cre-
1997).
ate their own method of instruction. Imagine how
Powerful results. The effectiveness of DI is sup-
comfortable you would feel if the pilot of your next
ported by an impressive body of research. An evaluation
flight decided to experiment with his “new idea” for
of the model was conducted by the nationwide Follow
landing the plane.Yet every day teachers experiment
Through program and involved more than 8,000 chil-
with the futures of children by trying first one
dren in 20 communities who were taught by one of nine
approach, then another.
different models. (Follow Through is a nationwide, com-
• DI is effective for teaching rote memory skills but
prehensive educational program for economically disad-
does not teach higher-order thinking skills or prob-
vantaged children, grades K to 3. Many Head Start chil-
lem solving. Wrong. DI curriculum design principles
dren enter Follow Through programs.) Children who
have been used successfully to teach higher-order
participated in the DI model made significant gains in
skills such as deductive and inductive reasoning in
academic achievement, catching up to or even surpass-
history, literary analysis, chemistry, earth science,
ing the national norms on several arithmetic, reading,
legal reasoning, problem solving, critical thinking,
and language skills (Bock, Stebbins, & Proper, 1996;
and ratio and proportions (Kameenui & Carnine,
Gersten, Carnine, & White, 1984). None of the other
1998).
eight educational approaches evaluated by the Follow
• DI has a detrimental effect on students’ self-esteem
Through program was nearly as effective as DI. Perhaps
and their attitudes toward learning. Wrong. In
even more impressive are the results from two follow-up
fact, data from the Follow-Through study show just
studies showing long-term benefits of DI. When they
the opposite. Children in DI programs had the high-
were in high school, the children who had participated
est scores on measures of self-concept, higher even
in DI through the third grade had higher graduation
than programs designed to enhance self-concept
rates (60% to 40%), lower dropout rates, more promo-
(Watkins, 1996). This is not surprising. Children
tions to the next grade, and more acceptances to college
who are competent readers, writers, and math calcu-
than a comparison group of children with similar disad-
lators are more likely to feel good about themselves
vantaged backgrounds (Darch, Gersten, & Taylor, 1987;
than are children whose academic difficulties make
Meyer, Gersten, & Gutkin, 1983). All of these differences
each day in school a hardship.
were statistically significant. For more information on
the effectiveness of DI, see Adams and Engelmann
(1996) and Weisberg (1994).
273
From Exceptional Children: An Introduction to Special Education (6th ed.) (pp. 272-273) by William L.
Heward (2000). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
